There is no such thing as the typical IOM project cycle. As you might expect, each project is a little different from the others. Studies differ in length, staffing, focus, and financial resources, as well as their timelines and the sensitivity and visibility of the issues they cover. Similarly, experienced committee chairs and project directors have their own ways of going about the process and this also results in variations.
This section will describe the most common types of activities we undertake--the consensus study and the roundtable--and then briefly lay out the study process chronologically, dividing it into four stages: startup, study conduct (doing and writing up the research, the deliberative process), report review, and production and dissemination.
Consensus Reports
The core of the institution's work consists of studies usually of six months to two years in duration and performed under contract to a sponsor or set of sponsors. Each study is conducted by a committee selected expressly for that purpose. The committee meets at intervals to consider its scope of work, to review the relevant scientific evidence, and to develop its findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Once the report has been outlined by the committee, various sections often are written by individual members. The writing process is guided by the committee chair and aided by the committee staff, in particular by the study director.
The charge to the committee, developed before committee members are selected, is the formal statement of the questions to be addressed by the study. This statement defines the study's scope and issues to be examined. If a committee finds in the course of its work that this description is inadequate, the charge can be formally modified through petition to the Executive Committee of the National Research Council's Governing Board. Such petitions are carefully examined; a committee that is well balanced for one purpose may not be appropriately constructed for a modified task.
These studies can range from a brief document on a narrowly defined, highly technical problem to a comprehensive review of an important public-policy issue and with broad appeal.
Such issues are often controversial. This makes the independent, deliberative approach that is a hallmark of IOM and other National Academies studies especially critical and important.
In this way, we have done work on topics as complicated and diverse as methods used for allocating organs for transplant, contraceptive development, the benefits of retaining smallpox virus, and the health effects of herbicides on Vietnam veterans. The recommendations from such studies regularly influence public policy.
Most committees seek to synthesize a new consensus, rather than simply to choose among ideas and options that have existed previously. The committee's creative analysis of an issue often moves public debate in new directions. Complex studies of this nature usually require between 15 and 24 months to obtain necessary funding, amass data, arrange meetings of busy committee members, and conduct a comprehensive review of the final report.
On rare occasions, when advice is urgently needed to meet a pressing deadline, a major study can be accomplished in as little as four months. However, the committee and staff conducting such a study face a very demanding schedule, and the scope of the study must be more narrowly defined. Clearly, not all projects can be undertaken on this fast track basis.
All consensus reports must be reviewed and approved by an appointed panel of objective reviewers before they are considered products of the National Academies and ready for public release. (More information on report review is available later in this document)
Roundtables and Forums
Roundtables and forums are a type of convening activity of The National Academies that provide a means for representatives of government, industry, and academia to gather periodically for the identification and discussion of scientific issues of mutual concern. They represent a neutral setting in which individuals, acting as individuals and frequently as representatives of particular interests or points of view, can exchange views and react to presentations by subject matter experts.
The Institute of Medicine convenes several of these groups to probe issues related to health care, among them the Food Forum, the Forum on Microbial Threats, the Roundtable on Health Literacy, Roundtable on Environmental Health Sciences, Research, and Medicine, and the Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine.
In contrast to the institutional requirements for members of National Academies’ consensus study committees, roundtable and forum members are not necessarily selected solely on the basis of their expertise and are not subject to any institutional restrictions with respect to potential sources of bias and conflict of interest. Because members of roundtables and forums are not appointed with consideration to bias, conflict of interest, and balance, products derived from roundtable and forum activities are prohibited by The National Academies from drawing conclusions and making recommendations.
Roundtables and forums can commission individually authored background papers and hold workshops to inform their discussion. However, in both cases, any documents that result are presented to the roundtable or forum, and should not be construed as reflective of conclusions and recommendations developed by the roundtable or forum nor as a document reflecting the position of The National Academies.
IOM Organizational Structure
The IOM is organized into 8 oversight boards: Board on African Science Academy Development (joint with the National Research Council [NRC]); Board on Children, Youth, and Families (joint with NRC); Food and Nutrition Board; Board on Global Health; Board on Health Care Services; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Board on Health Sciences Policy; and Board on Military and Veterans Health. Board membership is chosen in accordance with the mission and needs of the particular Board.
Next - Project Start-Up
|